Posted on Jun 13, 2014
SSG Robert Burns
15.4K
306
139
11
11
0
Posted in these groups: Multinational force iraq emblem  mnf i   1 5 IraqIsis logo ISIS
Edited >1 y ago
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 59
SSgt Thomas A Tullis Jr
1
1
0
We should return IF the Iraqi government asks for assistance. Should the US return then the kid gloves should be removed and the Iraqi government WILL provide the compensation for our services!
(1)
Comment
(0)
Sgt Erle Mutz
Sgt Erle Mutz
>1 y
"DITTO" again!!!!
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG William Patton
1
1
0
We should have never deposed Saddam Hussein the first time. Doing so created a power vaccum in the region that opened the door for these nut cases. Having deposed him, we should have kept a sizable force there to prevent the rise of these militant inslamic terrorists. Pulling out and expecting the Iraqis to fight is like waiting up to see Santa Claus. Now we may have no choice but to put boots on the ground, but like previously, we need to wage total war, not rules of engagement, and wipe these bastards off the face of the earth for good.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SSgt Network Engineer
SSgt (Join to see)
>1 y
I agree with your response 100%. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein left too much of a vacuum. I also think it may be necessary to maintain a more permanent presence in Iraq much like we have in South Korea, Japan and Germany. While it doesn't need to be a huge force it should be enough to keep the region stable and in check.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC John Wilson
LTC John Wilson
11 y
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and the Baath party was ridiculous. We are paying for it now. If we go back, we need to declare general war and no Rules of Engagement.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG William Patton
SSG William Patton
11 y
Our enemies wage war on us and rules of engagement be damned. Any means at their disposal, to kill us, is used. The wars we now fight are like Vietnam in some respects. Fighting the insurgeant Viet Cong was difficult at best because they did not wear uniforms. They hit us and then bled back into the populace, or they went into a tunnel hole. My philosophy in war is the only rule is their are no rules. If you are attacked from an area, you wipe out that area. Collateral damage has always occurred and it always will regardless of attempts to stop it. War is to kill your enemy period.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Mark Sullivan
1
1
0
Hmmmmm, this is such a double edged sword. I feel our pulling out, opened the door to these bums. In short, we pulled out too early. I do feel, eventually we will deal with this bunch of fucktards, whether it be in the middle east or on our own ground. I agree we are not the worlds Police Force, but, what's the best way to handle a Bully? Beat the crap out of a Bully once, humiliate them, and they will leave you alone. If and when we do deal with this bunch, the gloves need to come off, no more niceness, no more respect, we need clear objectives, the politicians stay out of all of it, as does the media. Mainstream media couldn't make an accurate reporting of someone wiping their ass, much less a battle in a far off land. The mission definition is to annihilate ISIS, make them lose all taste for battle. The U.N. needs to stay out of making any definition of what we do, we swore to defend the interests of the United States, and the Constitution, nothing in my oath said anything about the Defending or taking orders from the United Nations. The UN is ineffective, and has been for a long time. The people of the world don't like how we handle things because we are brutal, but yet, we're the first ones the world looks to when it comes to defending them. An example of this was Bosnia. The European Union, was supposed to handle that issue, after 4 years of discussions, four countries sent in soldiers. The soldiers did nothing, in fact the Danish military had surrendered to the enemy at one refugee camp, and allowed the slaughter of many civilians who came to them for refuge, Srebrenica massacre. We eventually got involved. And the same will happen again, unless we clearly define, to the world, what out intent is, and what we will do, then stay the course. Handle this fighting in the same spirit as we did in WW2, grab them by the nose, and kick them in the ass. If they cross a border into another country, we give chase, do not let them hide the way the NVA used Cambodia and Laos.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SSG William Patton
SSG William Patton
11 y
Mark, we have assembled a fighting force unequaled in the world and because of the rules of engagement by the idiot in the White House, have gotten many killed or maimed for life. War is ugly business and people die. We should never enter a conflict unless we are committed to the total destruction of our enemies. You used the Spartans as an example and I will throw in the Roman legions who conquered the known world at that time. They waged total war and won. Screw the politics. Unless you are willing to go all in, do not go at all.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC John Wilson
LTC John Wilson
11 y
Definitely total destruction of our enemies and no limitations or rules of engagement. War is ugly, brutal, and it gets more men and women killed, when we stifle our capabilities to fight and win. Take off the Gloves! I bet we don't need ten years to clear up the situation in Syria and Iraq. Do it the military way, keep the papers out and win the war.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SGT Mark Sullivan
SGT Mark Sullivan
11 y
SSG William Patton The Romans are a good example too, I mentioned the Spartans because they fought the way they did. I agree though, War is an Ugly business, and shouldn't be entered into lightly. But, once we enter it, then we do need to commit to the destruction of our enemies.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC John Wilson
LTC John Wilson
>1 y
Correrct guys, get it done and spare the long term suffering that goes with it. God Bless America and Its Military, which is the greatest on earth.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SSG Instructor
1
1
0
Secure our national interests and let them [Iraqis] sort out their civil war. Its time for Iraqis to stand up for their own security.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Omar Rivera
1
1
0
What a lost. A country that cannot defend itself will fall. Get every American out now.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CW2 Joseph Evans
1
1
0
Self determination. We installed a failed government, let them sort themselves out.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Cpl Brett Wagner
Cpl Brett Wagner
>1 y
I think we should pull out of that entire part of the world and never go back.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG William Patton
SSG William Patton
>1 y
We could do that if this president would approve off shore drilling on the east and west coasts like it is in the Gulf of Mexico. But the liberals on each coast do not want their pristine view destroyed by drilling platforms. He could approve the Keystone Pipline and get the oil in the Dakotas to the refineries. We could be energy independent if he would do what is needed. But, until someone does, we are dependent upon mid-east oil and for that reason, we will stay in that region. It is that simple.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
CW2 Joseph Evans
>1 y
SSG William Patton, If it were only that simple. Believe me when I say that things are actually a lot more complicated. We are currently in the process, globally, of shifting from the control of an energy cartel that has succeeded at making themselves more important to the history of the world than they ever deserved. We are on the eve of a transition in energy, environmental and social changes. We see the fight between the old guard and the new guard being led by extremists on each front... Our current lack of oil is a symptom of a larger problem... Are we ready for the Armageddon that is going to come when our house of cards falls down??? The pipeline and many of those other issues are just delaying an inevitable "coming to Jesus" moment.
(1)
Reply
(0)
SSG William Patton
SSG William Patton
>1 y
Why make it complicated? We can be energy independent. We have the oil off each coast and in newly discovered fields in North Dakota and Utah. We have enough oil to last generations and export it too, which we already do. If you have ever been in Texas City or Pasedena, TX, you see takers being filled up on one side of the refinery with processed products, while we unload mideast oil on the other side. We the People need to take our country back from the elitists, like big oil, big bankers, and the techies and traders on Wall Street. We need to be informed on what is happening to our nation and do whatever we have to, to right the wrongs committed against We the People. It is all about the money, very simple, not complicated at all. What we need is the political will to take the money away from instant millionaires and billionaires created by black gold and it can be done. We have to vote these fat cats in Congress, who do not do the will of the people, out. We need to elect leaders who are committed to keeping our nation strong, not destroying it for the New World Order, which looks a lot like the communists I fought in Vietnam. No CW2 Evans, it is not complicated. It just takes restoring our nation, under God, and recovering the values we lost. It takes a grass roots movement, which is beginning, to restore our nation to greatness. It will not happen overnight, but it will happen. Even Armageddon is better than the world we live in today. A world without God is not a world.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PO1 Master-at-Arms
1
1
0
NATO needs to form coalition and keep pressure on them. America needs to stay out of this except special forces who almost never make it on the news
(1)
Comment
(0)
SSG William Patton
SSG William Patton
>1 y
Sunni and Shia have been fighting for 1400 years and will fight until the end of time. I agree with your assessment. The coalition needs to be made up of arabs and then maybe something would be accomplished.
(1)
Reply
(0)
LTC John Wilson
LTC John Wilson
11 y
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, need to make a joint coalition and meet the Isil rebels head on. However, I think they are paper mache and won't do the dirty work to win.
(0)
Reply
(0)
PO1 Master-at-Arms
PO1 (Join to see)
11 y
Maj Walter Kilar SSG William Patton and LTC John Wilson, look at the current status of Taliban and Al Qaeda, we hardly hear from them any more. Why? American help surely played in the equation. Coalitions also played their big roles. Additionally their funding sources have dwindled, so why can't the same be done with ISIS, Boko Haram, and other atrocious organizations?
(0)
Reply
(0)
Maj Walter Kilar
Maj Walter Kilar
11 y
PO1 (Join to see) I firmly believe that any coalition led by American troops *can* negate just about any threat on earth (e.g. Levant, Boko Haram), but the question is whether we *should* use American troops in a coalition against ISIL, particularly in Baghdad. To that point, I think America should not be *leading* a coalition against ISIL in Baghdad. If Shia and Sunni leaders got together and formally assembled a coalition against ISIL and requested American help with precision strike, special operations, training, and perhaps ground troops on an as-needed basis, that would be a good way to negate ISIL and teach them how to negate the threat on their own years from now when they will no doubt still be fighting. If America is *leading* a coalition, our goal should be to deny, degrade, deceive, disrupt, or destroy and leave. I don't know about you folks, but all my military training focuses on application of military power to blow things up and kill people. How many Americans are trained to fight nontraditional wars for other people? Maybe a few special forces troops learn that, but certainly not thousands of conventional troops.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
Maj Michael StClair
1
1
0
While I sure as hell don't want to reengage in Iraq - that being said I am also of the mind set that we either fight them there, or wait for them to show up here. Some very poor political decisions (on both sides of the political fence) brought us to this point. My crystal ball says that Obama does nothing but make idle threats, and that Iraq becomes a rogue state (such as North Korea)driven by Islamic ideology/theology that insists that everyone in the world bend knee to Mecca - and that it wont stop with just Iraq.
(1)
Comment
(0)
SFC Detailed Recruiter
SFC (Join to see)
>1 y
Sir, I don't normally post on Rally Point much, as I am your typical lurker and really enjoy reading the discussions. However, I am taking a personal interest in this topic as a veteran of Iraqui Freedom. I am now wondering if you are proposing that if we (United States) don't get involved physically that we would be partially responsible for the rest of the Middle East becoming nations driven by that same Islamic ideologoy/theology?
(0)
Reply
(0)
Maj Michael StClair
Maj Michael StClair
>1 y
No that wasn't my intent. I believe that something must (operative word is must) be done to prevent Iraq from becoming a rogue Islamic state - but not sure what the would be. Don't think becoming reengaged on the ground is the answer. Air strikes may be able to contain most if not all ISIS operations, but your really need FAC's on the ground as well as in the air if that is the preferred methodology. I guess you could also use drones and cruise missiles if necessary. But since all that has been accomplished so far is a lot of hang wringing and whining in Washington, and moving a Carrier Task Force to Gulf it is probably to late to effect and outcome which would be favorable. In short I believe because of the unwillingness by the political leadership of the United States to make a decision cedes the ball game to ISIS. This of course will embolden them to attack else where. Kuwait is a nice little morsel as is perhaps Jordan.
In short I believe we should have kicked ass, and taken names quite a while back and now its probably too late.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC John Wilson
LTC John Wilson
11 y
Air power alone doesn't win wars. Boots on the ground is costly, but is the only way to work with air power to clear, occupy , and destroy the enemy forces on the ground. If destroyed they don't come back to fight very well, if at all.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Public Affairs Officer
1
1
0
Ok, so I just read something on a few different sources, and I wanted to see how this may shape political opinion.

Iran is claiming that hey have no choice but to help Iraq reestablish security and to assist them in fighting ISIL. Historically speaking, Iran and Iraq get along worse than Texas and Oklahoma fans during football season. The Iraqi government is also heavily backed by the US, and the US and Iran have a very contentious relationship.

If Iran does help Iraq, how could this affect our relationship with Iraq? What impact may this have across our other Allies? Will they feel as though they may be more likely to get support from their mortal enemy prior to getting support from us?

If Iran and Iraq develop a working partnership which carries over after (if) ISIL is defeated, what impact may that have on the Middle East? After all, Iran is supported by Russia, as is Syria. This may work to stabilize a region of the Middle East, but would it lead to potential further issues? Could Russia exert further influence on the Middle East through a proxy relationship with Iraq? Could this affect the world energy market? Could we see other parts of the Middle East completely destabilize through such influence? Israel's national interests would definitely be impacted by Iran expanding it's influence.

Further, will we lose credibility? Israel would expect us to come to their aid if the PLO or another organization conducted a similar campaign. Given, they have a strong military, but if they were overwhelmed they would need our help. Will they believe that we are there to support them if we will not support another government that we established and "stabilized."

There are so many questions to ask here that carry way beyond the simple concept of the immediate impact of supporting Iraq through military effort. There are second and third order aspects here that can have a tremendous impact across our national interests, both abroad and domestically. To me, it seems as though many are being very short-sighted in addressing the total impact of the decisions being made right now. This includes many whom I have heard speak from our civilian government. I would like to hear them address many of these issues in support of the lobbying and decisions that they make in order to demonstrate that they have reviewed the full impact of their ideas and decisions just so maybe we can get an idea of their assessment.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Maj Walter Kilar
Maj Walter Kilar
>1 y
It depends on how you define "Iraq" and "Iran". We westerners are viewing this through western eyes. We westerners place more importance on drawing a black line on a map and calling that "Iraq", which is next to the black line on the map that we call "Iran". We project our concept of government of an elected body that represents the disparate groups inside what they consider arbitrarily drawn lines, to which the folks living inside those lines vehemently disagree upon. Perhaps if we restated the problem as "certain folks inside this artificially drawn line that we call Iraq" are causing problems for "another set of folks inside another artificially line called Iran", but we can pick and choose which set of folks to support inside or outside these lines. Unfortunately, this would play into a style of warfare that we are not accustomed to--warfare amongst tribes united by things other than a Constitution, common government, or Western form of identity. What I am alluding to is what we would generally (and improperly) call sectarian warfare or war between religious groups.

I do not have the answer, but I am certain that the answer has something to do with changing how we view the problem set.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Infantry Officer
1
1
0
Let them work it out.
(1)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close